(The reporter on this story is Mike Argento. For those of us who waited with impatience for his hilarious send-ups of the "breathtaking inanity" revealed in the KvD case each week, this report shows clearly that Argento does straight reporting well, too.)

Well, we got three days without Larry, but he's now posting as J. Mahoney (what's his fascination with names that start with J?) over on the Rio Rancho Policy Amended thread. Guess he didn't get enough attention on Ed's blog.

Well, we got three days without Larry, but he's now posting as J. Mahoney (what's his fascination with names that start with J?) over on the Rio Rancho Policy Amended thread. Guess he didn't get enough attention on Ed's blog.

They now appear to have excised him again.

So he actually made some posts under your name? He only threatened to post under my name.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Not my name, I believe it was sir_toejam's name he posted under. It was on a little used thread about to drop off the front page at the time he did it - it was what prompted Wesley to enforce the ban. I think, but am not sure, that it was in the Feb 15 Dan Ely thread, but the posts were deleted.

I like to go to this site from time to time to get a nice chuckle and see how someone can twist logic and argue against evolution from the typical creationist standpoint.The little [sic] things all over get really annoying though.

Here they ignore the fact that there are 18 viable pathways for the mutations to grant the bug resistance to antibiotics, but that's not the funny part.

Quote

They are’t talking about adding new genetic information or function, but rather losing function (susceptibility to the antiobiotic) in such a manner that each stage doesn’t kill all of the organisms in one fell swoop.

That's right. A function of the bacteria was to die when it met a particular antibiotic. The mutations made the bug LOSE this function of death. See? Mutations only degrade the genome, no matter what, period.

Quote

If this principle applies, as they suggested, to larger scales of biological organization, then the neo-Darwinian gig is, for all practical purposes, over.

I don't know what they mean by "larger scales" when they talk about missense mutations, but whatever. I just think it's funny that they say "if there are only 18 ways to get there, then Darwin is done."

Quote

This makes “the protein tape of life” predictable?

Yeah, that's what they said, ain't it?

Friggin creationists.

--------------("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

I'm new to Panda's Thumb, but I'm thoroughly impressed at the excellent job you guys are doing helping to promote the ID and YEC causes. This is a PRO-ID, PRO-YEC blog, right? I figured it is because I didn't think anyone hosting a Darwinist blog would be so naive as to let such hateful, bombastic anti-ID/YEC fulminations go un-moderated or un-memory-holed. My conclusion? Either this is a Pro-Darwinist blog and you Darwinists are running REALLY SCARED, or this blog is a stealth ID/YEC blog. Hmmmm...

<quote>I didnâ€™t think anyone hosting a Darwinist blog would be so naive as to let such hateful, bombastic anti-ID/YEC fulminations go un-moderated or un-memory-holed.</quote>Perhaps you didn't notice that hateful, bombastic pro-ID fulminations are also allowed here. I guess you're not familiar with the concept of "free speech", probably because it's not compatible with your worldview. Nonetheless, whether you can accept this "free speech" concept or not, you should educate yourself about it so that you can recognize it when others apply and promote it.

"Iâ€™m new to Pandaâ€™s Thumb, but Iâ€™m thoroughly impressed at the excellent job you guys are doing helping to promote the ID and YEC causes. This is a PRO-ID, PRO-YEC blog, right? I figured it is because I didnâ€™t think anyone hosting a Darwinist blog would be so naive as to let such hateful, bombastic anti-ID/YEC fulminations go un-moderated or un-memory-holed. My conclusion? Either this is a Pro-Darwinist blog and you Darwinists are running REALLY SCARED, or this blog is a stealth ID/YEC blog. Hmmmmâ€¦"

Now, how can I or anyone else respond to that? None of the "fulminations" in question are even identified, let alone addressed logically. Ironically, you appear to be guilty of the very crime you accuse others of. It is your post which is free of all content except insult.

The tone of pro-science posts here ranges from extremely politeness to clever, civil satire (with the occasional mild insult used rarely, in frustration). The tone creationist drive-by posts tends to be like yours - unprovoked insult, without any effort to address the actual issues. Not very Christian. And then you tend to run away <sound of chickens clucking/><flaps arms to imitate chicken wings/>.

Hey Sal, did you forget my questions for you already? No problem. As always, I'm happy to post them again. And again and again and again, every time you show your face here, until you either answer them or run away (again).

*ahem*

1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3. what, precisely, about â€śevolutionâ€ť is any more â€śmaterialisticâ€ť than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too. Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5. Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics? Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6. What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did. Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers? Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that? Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?

9. Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research". Why is that?

10. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"? (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently). None? Why is that?

11. Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics? Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right? And yet IDers are ignored in these fields. Why is that?

12. Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13. Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?

14. Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

18. >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19. >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable? How do you propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20. >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it. Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21. >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence. However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it. Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22. >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great. Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23. > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24. >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really. So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25. >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not IDissues.

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26. >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"? After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement? Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist? Why not call yourselves a more accurate name? I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson --- The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28. >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not? Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world? Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31. >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.

32. BTW, what observer do you think collapses the Designer's wavefunction and, uh, brings it into existence?

I can see that the Flank and Davidson have read the book 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' ... I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. Iâ€™m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase â€¦ fast. Letâ€™s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. And everybody quotes all these long-winded academic sources. I would love to hear from each of you, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief. Take me from when and how it all began to where you think its going and why ... very short and simple so my pea brain can understand it ... try explaining it nicely and politely.

<quote> You should be one to make claims about being forthright. </quote>

Speaking of a lack of forthrightness, Sal, when do you plan on answering all those questions that you ran away from the last time we met? Forget them already? No problem -- I'm happy to repost again. And again and again and again, as many times as I need to until you answer them.

*ahem*

1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method?

2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

3. what, precisely, about â€śevolutionâ€ť is any more â€śmaterialisticâ€ť than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine?

4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

(OK, we'll scratch this one, since you seem to recognize that Ahmanson is a nutter and have repudiated his nuttiness -- I look forward to your helping OTHER IDers repudiate his nuttiness too. Although I am rather curious as to why, do you think, Ahmanson funds DI, and why, do you think, DI takes his money?)

5. Why are you undermining your own side by proclaiming here that ID is all about defeating "atheism" and "anti-religion", while your side is desperately trying to argue in court that ID has nothing at all whatsoever to do with religion or religious apologetics? Are your fellow IDers just lying under oath when they testify to that, Sal?

6. What did the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms did it use to do whatever the heck you think it did. Where can we see it using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything.

7. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), IDers keep telling us that ID is science and not just fundamentalist Christian apologetics.

Given that, why is it that IDEA Clubs only allow Christians to serve as officers? Why aren't Muslims or Raelians or Jews who accept ID allowed to serve as IDEA Club officers?

Is there a legitimate scientific reason for that, or is it just plain old-fashioned religious bigotry we are seeing?

8. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), the Templeton Foundation says that it asked IDers to submit ideas for scientific research projects into ID that it could fund ------ and no one submitted any.

Why is that? Is it because IDers are far more interested in using political methods to push their religious opinions into school classrooms than they are in doing any actual "scientific research"?

9. Gee, Sal (or whoever you are) I can't think of any scientific advance made in any area of science at any time in the past 25 years as the result of ID "research". Why is that?

10. How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have there been centering around ID "research"? (I mean the ones that were NOT later withdrawn by the journal on the grounds that they were published fraudulently). None? Why is that?

11. Why is it that leading DI luminaries (such as the, uh, Isaac Newton of Information Theory) never get invited to scientific symposia on Information Theory or Quantum Mechanics? Surely if ID were at the cutting edge of scientific research in these fields, professionals in the field would be dying to hear about it, right? And yet IDers are ignored in these fields. Why is that?

12. Why is it that IDers prefer to "debate" in front of church audiences and college Christian student groups, but not in front of scientific conferences or peer-reviewed science journals?

13. Hey Sal, why is it that all of DI's funding comes from fundamentalist Christian political groups and Reconstructionist nutjobs?

14. Why is it that the Templeton Foundation, which focuses on issues of science and religion (right up ID's alley, eh?) won't fund DI?

15. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), your pal Luskin told the press that there was a positive scientific theory of ID that was NOT based solely on negative arguments against evolution.

18. >Intelligent design is an interpretation of a fundamental physical law known as quantum mechanics.

What interpretation.

And why do quantum physicists think ID is full of crap?

19. >It it testable in 2 ways:

WHAT, specifically, is testable? How do you propose to test :"something intelligent did, uh, something intelligent"?

20. >1. When a designer is available to participate, such as a gene enegineering company we can test it directly such as in the case of www.genetic-id.com

Glad to hear it. Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

21. >2. In the abesense of having a designer present, we can apply simlar tests but will not be able to obviously get direct observational evidence. However this is still consistent with accepted practice in Forensic science.

Glad to hear it. Is the Intelligent Designer available to participate, or isn't it, and how can we tell.

22. >An objective criteria would be something like the blueprints for genetically engineered food.

Great. Can you show me, please, the blueprint for anything that you think your Intelligent Designer designed --- the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, etc etc etc?

Then can you show me how this blueprint is implemented by the Designer?

23. > www.genetic-id.com gives examples of how design is detected.

Why is it that genetic engineers, like other scientists, think ID is full of crap, then?

24. >If you think that ID applies only to "God made" designs, it only shows your misunderstandings of the theory

Really. So the design of life wasn't done by God?

Interesting.

Was it space aliens?

25. >The issues you bring up are creationist issues, not IDissues.

But you ARE a creationist, aren't you.

If not, then I am curious --- what were you before ID appeared on the scene in 1987?

26. >No alternative is better than a wrong alternative.

Uh, I thought ID **was** the "alternative" . . . ?

Are you now telling me that it's NOT an "alternative"? After all DI's arm-waving about its "alternative scientific theory" and its "positive scientific theory that does not depend solely on negative arguments against evolution", are you NOW telling me that DI is just BSing us when they say that, and they really DON'T have any "alternative scientific theory" after all?

27. Hey Sal (or whoever you are), if there is no such alternative as "intelligent design theory", then, uh, why does the Intelligent Design movement call itself the, uh, "Intelligent Design movement? Why name yourselves after something that doesn't exist? Why not call yourselves a more accurate name? I, personally, like the one offered by your pal Paul Nelson --- The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). It's lots more accurate than "intelligent design", particularly since, as you NOW seem to be saying, there simply IS NO scientific theory of design. . . .

28. >We do not see the Designer of life in opreation today as far as I know

Why not? Did it climb back aboard its flying saucer and go home?

Are you seriously suggesting that God doesn't intervene in the modern world? Do your fellow fundies know that you are telling everyone that God no longer does anything?

But now you've raised another interesting point --- if ID really is "science", then why exactly do IDers find it necessary to change, through legislative fiat, the definition of "science" to make ID fit?

31. >Hey Flanky boy, the above equation from physics is the basis for ID theory.

Reeeaaallllyyyyyyy.

Would you mind underlining the term in this equation that represents the Intelligent Designer?

Thanks.

32. BTW, what observer do you think collapses the Designer's wavefunction and, uh, brings it into existence?